Why is R>F outer

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

Just a question

 

[SweetDao]

By virtue of being a "superior quality", it exceeds any arbitrary amount of "anything" of the lower reality.

Basically, assume we have an apple and a pear. I postulate that the Pear > Apple. No matter the apple you have, be it the biggest, strongest, etc, you'll never make it become a pear, because it's two different quality/object. This goes the same for qualitative superiority and R>F. No matter what is in "F", it will never amount to anything for "R".

 

[AKUTO123]

Because you can't reach with number. you can add infinite and infinite and infinite dimension but doesn't change that's still a dimension it isn't different but r>f adds a new quality it isn't dimension it is a different thing and you cant make it with dimensions because it had a special quality

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

By virtue of being a "superior quality", it exceeds any arbitrary amount of "anything" of the lower reality.

Basically, assume we have an apple and a pear. I postulate that the Pear > Apple. No matter the apple you have, be it the biggest, strongest, etc, you'll never make it become a pear, because it's two different quality/object. This goes the same for qualitative superiority and R>F. No matter what is in "F", it will never amount to anything for "R".

Honestly that seems nlf as being R>F shouldnt auto assumed its inf x uncountably infinitely more superior

 

[SweetDao]

Honestly that seems nlf as being R>F shouldnt auto assumed its inf x uncountably infinitely more superior

It's not. This is exactly how it should work. As long as the R>F is sufficiently explained, it's fine. If anything, it makes no sense to assume that "at a certain number of dimensions, it actually becomes real", you don't change quality just by virtue of "being numerous".

 

[Zack_Schewelder]

Because you can't reach with number. you can add infinite and infinite and infinite dimension but doesn't change that's still a dimension it isn't different but r>f adds a new quality it isn't dimension it is a different thing and you cant make it with dimensions because it had a special quality

You are misinterpreting here, R is still in the dimensional land but in one way its dimensional quality cannot be compared to the millions of Dimensions F.

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

It's not. This is exactly how it should work. As long as the R>F is sufficiently explained, it's fine. If anything, it makes no sense to assume that "at a certain number of dimensions, it actually becomes real", you don't change quality just by virtue of "being numerous".

That's still a big reach as the verse shouldnt be auto assumed having infinite dimensions. The way I see, R>F is only equal to one dimensional jump

 

[SweetDao]

That's still a big reach as the verse shouldnt be auto assumed having infinite dimensions. The way I see, R>F is only equal to one dimensional jump

R>F or 1-A doesn't need infinite dimensions. Because it's above the concept of "dimensions" as a whole, while also being in a superior quality.

Also, if you're unhappy, feel free to go check other wikis that fit your view better.

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

R>F or 1-A doesn't need infinite dimensions. Because it's above the concept of "dimensions" as a whole, while also being in a superior quality.

Also, if you're unhappy, feel free to go check other wikis that fit your view better.

R>F superiorty should just be contingent to a dimensional jump. Beyond the concept of dimensions seems based of exploitive assumptions

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

Also no need to tell me to go to other wikis as I was just giving my thoughts. Idk why ur being too defensive

 

[SweetDao]

R>F superiorty should just be contingent to a dimensional jump. Beyond the concept of dimensions seems based of exploitive assumptions

No, it doesn't. The way we portray R>F is by virtue of operating on a higher quality. It's not a matter of "we link the lower quality and their elements to the higher one", it's a matter of complete cut-off between both. If a verse assumes that a reality "more real" than another one is superior in such a way that the lower one amount to literally nothing (fiction in the truest sense of the term) you could make the lower reality as big as you want, you could even use all the elements and permutes them in any way you see fit that it would still not reach it. "Elements" here are not only physical, they can be conceptual and such, I think the precision is necessary just in case.

Also no need to tell me to go to other wikis as I was just giving my thoughts. Idk why ur being too defensive

I'm not defensive. I'm saying that if it's what you think and the wiki doesn't follow your thoughts (and therefore you disagree with it) you should check a wiki that fits your view. Scaling space is wide, you'll surely find something that caters to how you see things.

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

No, it doesn't. The way we portray R>F is by virtue of operating on a higher quality. It's not a matter of "we link the lower quality and their elements to the higher one", it's a matter of complete cut-off between both. If a verse assumes that a reality "more real" than another one is superior in such a way that the lower one amount to literally nothing (fiction in the truest sense of the term) you could make the lower reality as big as you want, you could even use all the elements and permutes them in any way you see fit that it would still not reach it. "Elements" here are not only physical, they can be conceptual and such, I think the precision is necessary just in case.

I'm not defensive. I'm saying that if it's what you think and the wiki doesn't follow your thoughts (and therefore you disagree with it) you should check a wiki that fits your view. Scaling space is wide, you'll surely find something that caters to how you see things.

Make the lower reality as big as you want? Wouldnt that mean it would just make it boundless since you can imagine any hierarchies of superior ontology? Seems a big stretch if the writer or dreamer lacks epistemology

 

[SweetDao]

Make the lower reality as big as you want? Wouldnt that mean it would just make it boundless since you can imagine any hierarchies of superior ontology? Seems a big stretch if the writer or dreamer lacks epistemology

No, it's not boundless, since boundless doesn't have limit and isn't put into a hierarchy. The biggest a lower reality could get realistically (unless some specific stuff ig) would be High 1-B+/Low 1-A with layers (Although since we're hinging into a quality superiority with Low 1-A, it's not the best case).

No, that's the thing. You can imagine the lower reality being "layers on top of layers of concept" or whatever for example, it would still be "fiction" for the lower one. Since the lower reality (unless stated otherwise) operate on the quality of dimensionality/size as a whole, then we assume no matter the arbitrary dimensionality/size, it will never be "more real" if it's fiction.

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

No, it's not boundless, since boundless doesn't have limit and isn't put into a hierarchy. The biggest a lower reality could get realistically (unless some specific stuff ig) would be High 1-B+/Low 1-A with layers (Although since we're hinging into a quality superiority with Low 1-A, it's not the best case).

No, that's the thing. You can imagine the lower reality being "layers on top of layers of concept" or whatever for example, it would still be "fiction" for the lower one. Since the lower reality (unless stated otherwise) operate on the quality of dimensionality/size as a whole, then we assume no matter the arbitrary dimensionality/size, it will never be "more real" if it's fiction.

Ignoring boundless, wouldnt a single R>F can just be high outer+ by default? Since you said the size can be anything what the dreamer wants

 

[SweetDao]

Ignoring boundless, wouldnt a single R>F can just be high outer+ by default? Since you said the size can be anything what the dreamer wants

No. Also, you can't really have "R>F" and get High 1-A+, since you'll more or less assume it's transcending all possible worlds in such a way it's seen as fiction for the higher realm, which isn't possible in our current standards.

But to put a bit more into perspective, the default "R>F" (assuming again, everything is explained, no antifeat etc) is 1-A because the lower reality would be by default at best High 1-B+/Low 1-A.

However, if in the story, it's explained that somehow the lower reality has, idk, several levels in itself that serves as qualitative superior layers (I don't have any precise example, so just imagine anything), then the "Higher Reality" wouldn't just be baseline 1-A, but it would have layers into 1-A or maybe even High 1-A depending on the description and such.

The only postulate we make, by default, is that R>F is above any arbitrary dimensionality and size. But R>F (or qualitative superiority) isn't bound to only 1-A, just like anything, it's a case-by-case stuff.

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

That seems a bit inconsistent since 1A R>F relies on the premise that it can be on any size. And size includes h1a+ structures. The standard seem should systematically be reevaluated, however I am not really interested to argue with non anecdotal affirmations with coherentism myself at the moment. I think my question has been answered, thank you

 

[SweetDao]

That seems a bit inconsistent since 1A R>F relies on the premise that it can be on any size. And size includes h1a+ structures. The standard seem should systematically be reevaluated, however I am not really interested to argue with non anecdotal affirmations with coherentism myself at the moment. I think my question has been answered, thank you

Again, "size" here, is "size" of the lower reality, you only scale to what the lower reality is. You can't assume the lower reality has any and all possible extension of itself (High 1-A+) without further evidence.

Don't get me wrong. R>F and such can be scaled at any level really. You can make it worth nothing, you can make it +1D, you can make it +infinite D, you can make it 1-A, you can make it 0, frankly, it depends on the one who want to scale, there is no "objective fact" behind where to scale it. Obviously, the current standards hinges on philosophy and such, but well, you could vert well dismiss it entirely if you wish to, but that means the wiki doesn't follow your ways of doing things.

This is why a lower reality can be Low 2-C and, if someone (or a realm) has a good enough justification, make said realm 1-A without needing any arbitrary dimensions and such. 1-A realms rely on size too (or well, they also can't, depending on the stuff, but that's not the point here), just on a different quality. Point is, starting 1-A, we delve not really on size anymore, but quality.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

That seems a bit inconsistent since 1A R>F relies on the premise that it can be on any size. And size includes h1a+ structures. The standard seem should systematically be reevaluated, however I am not really interested to argue with non anecdotal affirmations with coherentism myself at the moment. I think my question has been answered, thank you

High 1-A+ isn't really even a "size". It's just collection of all possible qualities/propositions. Size in the wording is only being used to have the ability to actualize any arbitrarily "large" quality such as meta-quality meta-meta-quality and any conceivable extension beyond.

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

High 1-A+ isn't really even a "size". It's just collection of all possible qualities/propositions. Size in the wording is only being used to have the ability to actualize any arbitrarily "large" quality such as meta-quality meta-meta-quality and any conceivable extension beyond.

But for a verse's ontology to have qualities, size is a necessacity correct? Unless you follow csap that thinks a structure that's beyond the concept of size can exist

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

But for a verse's ontology to have qualities, size is a necessacity correct? Unless you follow csap that thinks a structure that's beyond the concept of size can exist

Each higher quality are able to have their own independent notion of size that doesn't rely on the one of lower world.

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

Each higher quality are able to have their own independent notion of size that doesn't rely on the one of lower world.

So a high outer+ structure can be as small as an atom? Like whatever those DC/Marvel scalers cooking

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

So a high outer+ structure can be as small as an atom? Like whatever those DC/Marvel scalers cooking

No..? There's no singular collective size that encompasses all possible worlds. There's only different concepts of sizes in each higher quality.

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

Ok I think I get what you mean. Like trancendance doesnt equate to "higher" size

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

No..? There's no singular collective size that encompasses all possible worlds. There's only different concepts of sizes in each higher quality.

High 1-A+ encompasses all possible sizes but it is not itself a size or else that'd make it a possible world and then that obviously runs into a contradiction since then it'd have to encompass itself into it.

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

Oh I see, bit different than what csap offers like its extraversal layering

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

High 1-A+ encompasses all possible sizes

I would interpret it as encompassing all possible sizes with all possible qualities.

Since encompassing all possible sizes without itself being a size, is a low 1A interpretation too.

 

[MujRocks]

Having r>f transcendence effectively sees any and all dimensional space as "nothing" or fictional. Effectively, by seeing 3D space as if it were nothing, even an unvountably infinitely larger space, aka 4D space would still be nothing by the same value, as nothing multiplied by anything is still nothing. The same is applied to any numbered dimensional space.

This is called Qualititative Superiority, as it's quite literally a jump in quality (from nothing to something) rather than a jump in quantity (from something to something larger).